Get Exercise History

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns all logged sets for the exercise, orders them most recent first, and is a read operation implied by 'Returns'. Minor details like empty-result behavior are not covered, but the core behavior is transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core behavior ('Returns every logged set') before stating ordering and purpose. Every clause contributes information and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with complete schema descriptions, the description provides the key context: scope, ordering, and intended use. It does not specify exact response fields or explicitly contrast with get_workout_history, but the missing pieces are minor given the schema and naming.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents exerciseName and limit. The description adds contextual meaning for exerciseName by tying it to a specific movement and progression tracking, but it does not need to add further parameter-level detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource ('every logged set for one specific exercise') and adds the ordering ('most recent first') and analytical intent ('progression (reps/weight trend)'). This distinguishes it from broader history tools like get_workout_history.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly states when to use the tool: when you need exercise-specific history to see progression over time. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the single-exercise focus supplies clear context for selecting it over sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.